American Way of Life

Words wield incredible power. As activists around identity politics have often reminded us, identity-related pejorative language, that has percolated its way into the common vernacular, is oppressive, silencing, and marginalizing. For example, “bitch.”

The word’s derogatory usage dates back to 1811 when it was considered more offensive than the term ‘whore,’ according to the 1811 Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue. Since its demeaning inception, the word has been used as a mechanism to subdue women, to deride women who speak out, and to perpetuate the idea that women are inferior. Describing the word’s deep cultural roots, Joey Horsley of Fembio.org writes, “The bitch-image is ancient, its misogynist associations deeply ingrained; like many assumptions about women, it has so long been a part of the culture; that it’s taken for granted as ‘natural.’” However, jokingly using “bitch” as an insult and society’s conception that women are inferior does not have an apparent causal chain – this is the reason why so many think its usage is harmless; but its repetitive utterance has led to centuries of inequality and oppression. Professor Gay Young, director of American University’s Gender Studies Program, said that oppressive language creates oppressive action. “Using the term “bitch” absolutely constructs real oppression,” she said. “Because language constructs in important ways: both in experience and reality.”

But sometimes its usage can be harmless, or even empowering. As Pamela Meritt, founder of the blog Angry Black Bitch, told NPR last October, “The b-word differs person to person. I don’t want to ban the word or take it out of the public discourse. There are definitely empowered, fierce voices using it in different ways,” Meritt said. Professor Young compares the term “fag” to “bitch,” noting the similarities in usage. “It [the term fag] is deployed the same way ‘bitch’ is used. That is, to keep people in line, maintaining the status quo of dominance and subordination,” she said. It may seem like a double standard for bitch to be accepted in one circumstance but not in another, but it’s really a matter of how the word is used. For example, ‘black’ used to be a word that functioned primary as an insult, but now the word is descriptive more than pejorative, despite the negative connotations the word still carries (e.g. blackmail, black market, black magic). The way words’ connotations morph and become culturally accepted over years of usage is an extremely complicated evolution, but is “bitch” culturally acceptable? Is it acceptable when women use it? How about feminists? Young said the term’s evaluation is not that simple, but admits that its reclamation is possible. “It’s a tough line to walk. I think it’s interesting to raise a lot of questions and point to different perspectives [on the term bitch], but it should be dealt with caution,” she said. “If you claim it in your own terms it can be empowering, but imposing it on someone else is problematic.”

The popular feminist magazine Bitch describes how the word can be embraced on their Web site’s About page, “When it’s being used as an insult, ‘bitch’ is an epithet hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and don’t shy away from expressing them, and who don’t sit by and smile uncomfortably if they’re bothered or offended. If being an outspoken woman means being a “bitch,” we’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.” But when it’s used to describe a person who lacks audacity, courage, or strength, it’s undeniably undermining a movement by reaffirming the word’s etymological roots.

It’s important to understand the cultural and historical significance the word “bitch” carries. You might think that using it won’t affect anyone or change anything, but reexamine the way you and your friends use it. Are they using it to celebrate a word that connotes solidarity over derision, or are they using it to silence someone, putting one in a subordinate position? Will the word “bitch” as an insult seem silly and obsolete thirty years from now? Young said there is no way to tell. “I wouldn’t be holding my breath to see the change, but I also wouldn’t count it out; language can be reclaimed and rehabilitated.”

With its development uncertain, deconstructing “bitch” is an important literary exercise. Examining words and the assumptions behind their meanings gives one greater insight into how a seemingly innocuous word can imbed itself into a societal conception. Language is not the sole creator of oppression, but its significance should not be forgotten.

Sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness. Pancuronium bromide to paralyze muscles, including those necessary to breathe. Potassium chloride to end all heart function. In ten minutes, the amount of time to walk across American University’s campus, a former coworker, neighbor, friend, spouse, is dead by lethal injection.

Except, when the concoction doesn’t work as planned. When used together, sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride are known as the three-drug cocktail, used to end the lives of inmates in the majority of death penalty cases in the United States. But with anti-death penalty watchdogs, Supreme Court plaintiffs and even the creator of the current legal injection system raising questions about the trio’s effectiveness, the humane facade of the needle falls away.

During an execution, the first injection of sodium thiopental works to render inmates unconscious and theoretically numb to the lethal effects of Drugs Two and Three. Yet in some documented cases, the chemical has failed to anesthetize prisoners. As the second drug is administered, the conscious but paralyzed inmate suffocates, unable to voice pain.

Aside from chemical malfunctions, the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington non-profit, maintains a list of botched executions. There are countless examples of lethal injections where the inmates were repeatedly poked and prodded because executioners were unable to find suitable veins to use. As a result, the ten-minute process is far more drawn out and painful than any human being should have to experience.

This past December, Governor Corzine of New Jersey recently passed a law ending capital punishment because he is strongly against “state-endorsed killing.” If other states were willing to follow Governor Corzine’s model, the 3,350 inmates trapped on death row documented by the Criminal Justice Project could be given a new lease on life.

Supporters of the death penalty claim it is a permanent solution that makes the world a safer place. In an opinion piece for USA Today, former New York Gov. George Pataki defended his decision to make the death penalty legal because it “put [fear] back where it belongs - in the hearts of criminals.” Pataki also cited that violent crime and murders dropped significantly in the two years since the establishment of the death penalty. To further emphasize his point, he brought up New York serial killer Arthur Shawcross who killed eleven people after he was released from prison for raping and murdering two children. Unfortunately, said Pataki, Shawcross predated the instatement of the death penalty, or eleven lives could have been saved.

While supporters of the death penalty argue that death is the securest method to deal with serious criminals, anti-death penalty activists push for reform of the judicial system so sentences are fair and the accused are fairly represented in court. Along with many other anti-death penalty organizations, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty proposes life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. Likewise, While Governor Corzine is firmly against the death penalty, he is a strong advocate of life without parole, which is the punishment for New Jersey’s former death row inmates.

In early January, the Supreme Court heard a case on the constitutionality of the lethal injection procedure. As a result of the two death row inmates’ lawsuit, many states have placed a moratorium on lethal injections. The plaintiffs argued that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment based on autopsy records of a 1999 Kentucky execution where the inmate was “awake but unable to cry out” because the anesthesia failed to work properly. In the Kentucky case, as well as in other accounts of mishandled executions, it is clear lethal injection is a fate unfit for any human. To support such punishment would only further encourage a vindictive and biased system when valuable time and resources could be spent in effective reform programs for inmates and restitution programs for victims’ families.